Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

If they don't care about it, why does the law make it impossible?

Do you ever think?

Wisconsin marriage law clearly requires no potential for procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

Then let's do the Strict Scrutiny Test which is required when dealing with Constitutional Rights.

If the prohibition meets constitutional muster, what is the compelling State reason for denying same sex siblings from marriage.

Deflection in 3....2.....1...,,

Speaking of deflection- LOL!

Respond to my post- don't deflect from it.

I see you don't like testing your theory, so it's back to, cuz You say so......

I quite expected that

Speaking of deflection- LOL!

Respond to my post- don't deflect from it.

I did, now should we apply the applicable legal standard, or are you the simpleton coward we all think you are?

 

[Syriusly]

He's trolling. His sole purpose is to shut down threads like this.

I mean, after Boss' entire argument collapsed, they had to switch the conversation to something. As the whole 'killing homosexual marriage' bullshit wasn't working out too well.

Oh he is certainly trolling- but not to shut down this thread- he is as slimy a homophobe as Boss is- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them.”

I oppose family mariage

So your premis (not unlike your life), is without merit.

I've never read the quoted text, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I've never claimed to want to marry my sister, if I had one that is

And you are still a bigot

More of Pop's trolling. but not to shut down this thread- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them

Gee....so if the court caused the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy in 2003....

....why is incest marriage and polygamy still illegal in 2015?

I don't 'caused' means what these poor souls think it means. But then, this is the same group that has completely abandoned any of the OP's debunked claims.......the bar is set rather low.

Incest is a crime.

I think I've pointed that out before.

Nonetheless, incest is defined as vaginal penetration in Maryland. So it appears that same sex make siblings would not be included as incestuous.

Yes- you have mentioned it before- once again you attempting to dance away from a post without responding to it- with an unrelated bizarre factoid. Once again - you want to talk about 'incest' where no one else is referring to incest.

More of Pop's trolling. but not to shut down this thread- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them[/QUOTE]

Gee....so if the court caused the legalization of incest marriage[previously defined for Pops- but since he is just trolling- he ignores inconvenient truths] and polygamy in 2003....

....why is incest marriage and polygamy still illegal in 2015?

I don't 'caused' means what these poor souls think it means. But then, this is the same group that has completely abandoned any of the OP's debunked claims.......the bar is set rather low.

 

[Syriusly]

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

He's trolling. His sole purpose is to shut down threads like this.

I mean, after Boss' entire argument collapsed, they had to switch the conversation to something. As the whole 'killing homosexual marriage' bullshit wasn't working out too well.

Oh he is certainly trolling- but not to shut down this thread- he is as slimy a homophobe as Boss is- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them.”

I oppose family mariage

So your premis (not unlike your life), is without merit.

I've never read the quoted text, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I've never claimed to want to marry my sister, if I had one that is

And you are still a bigot

More of Pop's trolling. but not to shut down this thread- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them

Have I quoted from that?

Nope, not once

But of course, if you're OCD like Syriously is, these things just pop up in your head.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? I wonder if Pops is really William Donohue?

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them

 

[Montrovant]

I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

Nope, just demonstrating the legal application of equal law.

It is equal application that makes law non discriminatiry

The reason this is important is that the speed limit was created and administrated to protect society from great harm.

The reason that opposite sex siblings are prohibited from marriage is to protect society from an even greater social harm.

Yet, what is the great social harm caused by marriage of same sex siblings?

What societal harm was there in the past for a gay man to marry his lesbian sister?

Likely none, but since it didn't need to be addressed because all siblings were prohibited from marriage, and since the government were not discriminating, its a moot point.

Since all siblings are still prohibited from marriage, and since the government is not discriminating, why isn't it still a moot point?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is interesting to note just how much information that there is out there-both for and against- marriage that is not just between two unrelated people. In addition, there is anthropological information that describes the various cultural practices across geographical and cultural lines as well as historically.

I bring this up now as proof that certain people on this board who claim that polygamy and sibling marriage should or even must be allowed as a right do not really give a crap about the topic, or about anyone’s rights. If they did, they would have done the research and made the case for it- and the fact is that there is a case to be made –and there is some support for both sibling marriage and polygamy.

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

They could have presented an honest and balance case discussing the pros and cons but did no such thing. Rather, they have engaged to anti-intellectual and dishonest blathering and trolling. They pretend that they understand the legal issue while doing nothing more than making it up as they go.

I took the time to pull together a few articles that discuss various views on and aspects of these subjects-that I think are quite interesting. This is, in no way, to be taken as either and endorsement of, or condemnation of polygamy, sibling marriage or any other practice.

Dedicated to Boss and Pop…….see if you can learn something from this boys. Maybe it’s time to come up with an honest argument against same sex marriage and stop trying to bullshit people.

_______________________________________________________________

Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

Read more: Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates - Family, Marriages, and Sister - JRank ArticlesIncest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

There are several reliable examples of human communities where incest and/or close inbreeding have occurred on a regular and systematic basis. These examples include not only the well known cases of royal family incest but also incestuous practices among commoners. This social class distinction is important to note because human sociobiologists have dismissed the many instances of royal incest as exceptional and of no consequence to the debate. Cases involving commoners, where sibling or other incestuous marriages are usual and systematic, strongly challenge sociobiological suggestions that a selection mechanism exists to prevent inbreeding.

____________________________________________________

While cousin marriage is legal in most, and avunculate marriage is legal in many countries, sexual relations between siblings is considered incestuous almost universally. However, the innate sexual aversion (taboo against sexual attraction) between siblings forms due to close association in childhood. Thus, children who grow up together do not develop sexual attraction, even if they are unrelated, and conversely, siblings who were separated at a young age may develop sexual attraction. Thus, most cases of sibling incest, including accidental incest in the case of couples who met without being aware of their being siblings, concern siblings who were separated at birth or at a very young age.[52]

However, laws prohibiting incest between siblings have come under attack in recent years as defining a victimless crime, and violating the human rights of siblings who wish to have sexual relations as consenting adults. Sibling relationship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not? Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not?

Proponents of same-sex marriage say it is a fundamental right, protected by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, no line should be drawn between marriage rights for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Opponents counter by saying that historical definitions of marriage, as well as important public-policy considerations, should be the basis of such laws; lines may be drawn.

But even framing the issue points out the vexing question that the Supreme Court will have to wrestle with when it reviews this decision: If marriage is a fundamental and inviolable right under the Fourteenth Amendment, why must it be limited to same-sex, otherwise non-related, couples? Why doesn’t the same constitutional principle apply to plural marriages? Or to otherwise closely related couples? Why not marriages between brothers and sisters? Uncles and nieces?

Actually, no, they did not actually grapple with that issue and made no mention of it as it was not a question before the court. However, as I have said before, if such a case were to be brought, they would indeed have to rule on it, on its own merits while considering what rational basis, or possible what government interest there is in prohibiting those practices.

_____________________________________________________________


And there is this that they could have used if they were intellectually invested in the issue:

Legalize Polygamy! Next Step: We Need to Legalize Polygamy. No Joke.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us.

 

[Syriusly]

Or...your standards are merely applied to you. By advocating the argument that incest marriage and polygamy should be legal......that strongly insinuates that you support the legalization of each. And you've clearly cited 'insinuation' as 'evidence'.

Your standards apply to you, do they not?

And given your obsession with the topics, as you discuss virtually nothing else.....this obvious support of the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy becomes even more apparent.
Like your claim that I said sex was a requirement of marriage?

Yet every time I demand you quote me saying as much......you try to change the topic.

Odd that. Its like you're holding us to one standard....but yourself to another.

I can't quote something you claim that I said you said, when no such claim was initially made.

And I can oppose potential problems without knowing how to legally stop the problem.

You are a shallow thinker, but any non OCD afflicted mind can easily see that.

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

He's trolling. His sole purpose is to shut down threads like this.

I mean, after Boss' entire argument collapsed, they had to switch the conversation to something. As the whole 'killing homosexual marriage' bullshit wasn't working out too well.

Oh he is certainly trolling- but not to shut down this thread- he is as slimy a homophobe as Boss is- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them.”

I oppose family mariage
t

But all marriages result in families.

Meanwhile- you make the same claims- with the same logic- that the Catholic League made 12 years ago- and it is still illegal for you to marry your sister.

Your 'rational', your posts, your claims are eerily like those made 12 years ago when Massachusetts pulled an Obergefel..

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them

 

[Syriusly]

Wisconsin marriage law clearly requires no potential for procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

Then let's do the Strict Scrutiny Test which is required when dealing with Constitutional Rights.

If the prohibition meets constitutional muster, what is the compelling State reason for denying same sex siblings from marriage.

Deflection in 3....2.....1...,,

Speaking of deflection- LOL!

Respond to my post- don't deflect from it.

I see you don't like testing your theory, so it's back to, cuz You say so......

I quite expected that

Speaking of deflection- LOL!

Respond to my post- don't deflect from it.

I did, now should we apply the applicable legal standard, or are you the simpleton coward we all think you are?

Clearly you didn't- and you still just try to deflect- once again- the post you are running away from:

]Wisconsin marriage law clearly requires no potential for procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

 

[Syriusly]

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots./QUOTE]

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots./QUOTE]

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

Thanks! That should have been does NOT endorse

 

[Pop23]

Oh he is certainly trolling- but not to shut down this thread- he is as slimy a homophobe as Boss is- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them.”

I oppose family mariage

So your premis (not unlike your life), is without merit.

I've never read the quoted text, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I've never claimed to want to marry my sister, if I had one that is

And you are still a bigot

More of Pop's trolling. but not to shut down this thread- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them

Gee....so if the court caused the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy in 2003....

....why is incest marriage and polygamy still illegal in 2015?

I don't 'caused' means what these poor souls think it means. But then, this is the same group that has completely abandoned any of the OP's debunked claims.......the bar is set rather low.

Incest is a crime.

I think I've pointed that out before.

Nonetheless, incest is defined as vaginal penetration in Maryland. So it appears that same sex make siblings would not be included as incestuous.

Yes- you have mentioned it before- once again you attempting to dance away from a post without responding to it- with an unrelated bizarre factoid. Once again - you want to talk about 'incest' where no one else is referring to incest.

More of Pop's trolling. but not to shut down this thread- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them

Gee....so if the court caused the legalization of incest marriage[previously defined for Pops- but since he is just trolling- he ignores inconvenient truths] and polygamy in 2003....

....why is incest marriage and polygamy still illegal in 2015?

I don't 'caused' means what these poor souls think it means. But then, this is the same group that has completely abandoned any of the OP's debunked claims.......the bar is set rather low.[/QUOTE]

I've not mentioned incest nearly as much as other posters in this thread have, with the exception of mentioning.......

Incest is a crime.

I have brought up that it appears that the strict scrutiny test of the "compelling state interest" standard, it appears that Obergfell overturned the safety net ( that you indeed included in many many postings ), that it may indeed be possible that not including same sex siblings in marriage is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Now, have you come up with that compelling state interest that meets the strict scrutiny test yet?

If not, your simply drooling down your chin hoping for attention, like so many others with OCD.

 

[Syriusly]

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots./QUOTE]

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

Thanks! That should have been does NOT endorse

Corrected it on my post.

 

[Pop23]

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots./QUOTE]

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

And faux progressives not even attempting to hide their bigotry, racism and homophobia, cuz they argue just like the hater dupes that tried to keep the black man down.

Shame on you!

 

[Syriusly]

I oppose family mariage

So your premis (not unlike your life), is without merit.

I've never read the quoted text, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I've never claimed to want to marry my sister, if I had one that is

And you are still a bigot

More of Pop's trolling. but not to shut down this thread- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them

Gee....so if the court caused the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy in 2003....

....why is incest marriage and polygamy still illegal in 2015?

I don't 'caused' means what these poor souls think it means. But then, this is the same group that has completely abandoned any of the OP's debunked claims.......the bar is set rather low.

Incest is a crime.

I think I've pointed that out before.

Nonetheless, incest is defined as vaginal penetration in Maryland. So it appears that same sex make siblings would not be included as incestuous.

Yes- you have mentioned it before- once again you attempting to dance away from a post without responding to it- with an unrelated bizarre factoid. Once again - you want to talk about 'incest' where no one else is referring to incest.

More of Pop's trolling. but not to shut down this thread- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them

Gee....so if the court caused the legalization of incest marriage[previously defined for Pops- but since he is just trolling- he ignores inconvenient truths] and polygamy in 2003....

....why is incest marriage and polygamy still illegal in 2015?

I don't 'caused' means what these poor souls think it means. But then, this is the same group that has completely abandoned any of the OP's debunked claims.......the bar is set rather low.

I've not mentioned incest nearly as much as other posters in this thread have, with the exception of mentioning.......

Incest is a crime.

I have brought up that it appears that the strict scrutiny test of the "compelling state interest" standard, it appears that Obergfell overturned the safety net ( that you indeed included in many many postings ), that it may indeed be possible that not including same sex siblings in marriage is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Now, have you come up with that compelling state interest that meets the strict scrutiny test yet?

If not, your simply drooling down your chin hoping for attention, like so many others with OCD.[/QUOTE]

And why do you keep mentioning that incest is a crime? It is as relevant as me pointing out that income tax evasion is a crime.

And why are you parroting the claims made by the Catholic League 12 years ago? And why have none of your predictions come to pass?

More of Pop's trolling. but not to shut down this thread- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.

 

[Syriusly]

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots./QUOTE]

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

And faux progressives not even attempting to hide their bigotry, racism and homophobia, cuz they argue just like the hater dupes that tried to keep the black man down.

Shame on you!

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

 

[Pop23]

It is interesting to note just how much information that there is out there-both for and against- marriage that is not just between two unrelated people. In addition, there is anthropological information that describes the various cultural practices across geographical and cultural lines as well as historically.

I bring this up now as proof that certain people on this board who claim that polygamy and sibling marriage should or even must be allowed as a right do not really give a crap about the topic, or about anyone’s rights. If they did, they would have done the research and made the case for it- and the fact is that there is a case to be made –and there is some support for both sibling marriage and polygamy.

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

They could have presented an honest and balance case discussing the pros and cons but did no such thing. Rather, they have engaged to anti-intellectual and dishonest blathering and trolling. They pretend that they understand the legal issue while doing nothing more than making it up as they go.

I took the time to pull together a few articles that discuss various views on and aspects of these subjects-that I think are quite interesting. This is, in no way, to be taken as either and endorsement of, or condemnation of polygamy, sibling marriage or any other practice.

Dedicated to Boss and Pop…….see if you can learn something from this boys. Maybe it’s time to come up with an honest argument against same sex marriage and stop trying to bullshit people.

_______________________________________________________________

Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

Read more: Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates - Family, Marriages, and Sister - JRank ArticlesIncest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

There are several reliable examples of human communities where incest and/or close inbreeding have occurred on a regular and systematic basis. These examples include not only the well known cases of royal family incest but also incestuous practices among commoners. This social class distinction is important to note because human sociobiologists have dismissed the many instances of royal incest as exceptional and of no consequence to the debate. Cases involving commoners, where sibling or other incestuous marriages are usual and systematic, strongly challenge sociobiological suggestions that a selection mechanism exists to prevent inbreeding.

____________________________________________________

While cousin marriage is legal in most, and avunculate marriage is legal in many countries, sexual relations between siblings is considered incestuous almost universally. However, the innate sexual aversion (taboo against sexual attraction) between siblings forms due to close association in childhood. Thus, children who grow up together do not develop sexual attraction, even if they are unrelated, and conversely, siblings who were separated at a young age may develop sexual attraction. Thus, most cases of sibling incest, including accidental incest in the case of couples who met without being aware of their being siblings, concern siblings who were separated at birth or at a very young age.[52]

However, laws prohibiting incest between siblings have come under attack in recent years as defining a victimless crime, and violating the human rights of siblings who wish to have sexual relations as consenting adults. Sibling relationship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not? Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not?

Proponents of same-sex marriage say it is a fundamental right, protected by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, no line should be drawn between marriage rights for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Opponents counter by saying that historical definitions of marriage, as well as important public-policy considerations, should be the basis of such laws; lines may be drawn.

But even framing the issue points out the vexing question that the Supreme Court will have to wrestle with when it reviews this decision: If marriage is a fundamental and inviolable right under the Fourteenth Amendment, why must it be limited to same-sex, otherwise non-related, couples? Why doesn’t the same constitutional principle apply to plural marriages? Or to otherwise closely related couples? Why not marriages between brothers and sisters? Uncles and nieces?

Actually, no, they did not actually grapple with that issue and made no mention of it as it was not a question before the court. However, as I have said before, if such a case were to be brought, they would indeed have to rule on it, on its own merits while considering what rational basis, or possible what government interest there is in prohibiting those practices.

_____________________________________________________________


And there is this that they could have used if they were intellectually invested in the issue:

Legalize Polygamy! Next Step: We Need to Legalize Polygamy. No Joke.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us.

Just pointing out that the USSC obviously didn't grapple with same sex sibling marriage issue, cuz they left the door wide open (Refernce Marylands law).

Interesting though, why didn't they since no marriage law contains the need of sex to qualification.

Not sure how your quotes justifies this obvious omission

 

[Pop23]

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots./QUOTE]

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

And faux progressives not even attempting to hide their bigotry, racism and homophobia, cuz they argue just like the hater dupes that tried to keep the black man down.

Shame on you!

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

That's is the same arguments that the rednecks down south used to try to shout down progressives like me that sought racial equality!

Next we'll see you in white sheets hanging black men!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is interesting to note just how much information that there is out there-both for and against- marriage that is not just between two unrelated people. In addition, there is anthropological information that describes the various cultural practices across geographical and cultural lines as well as historically.

I bring this up now as proof that certain people on this board who claim that polygamy and sibling marriage should or even must be allowed as a right do not really give a crap about the topic, or about anyone’s rights. If they did, they would have done the research and made the case for it- and the fact is that there is a case to be made –and there is some support for both sibling marriage and polygamy.

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

They could have presented an honest and balance case discussing the pros and cons but did no such thing. Rather, they have engaged to anti-intellectual and dishonest blathering and trolling. They pretend that they understand the legal issue while doing nothing more than making it up as they go.

I took the time to pull together a few articles that discuss various views on and aspects of these subjects-that I think are quite interesting. This is, in no way, to be taken as either and endorsement of, or condemnation of polygamy, sibling marriage or any other practice.

Dedicated to Boss and Pop…….see if you can learn something from this boys. Maybe it’s time to come up with an honest argument against same sex marriage and stop trying to bullshit people.

_______________________________________________________________

Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

Read more: Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates - Family, Marriages, and Sister - JRank ArticlesIncest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

There are several reliable examples of human communities where incest and/or close inbreeding have occurred on a regular and systematic basis. These examples include not only the well known cases of royal family incest but also incestuous practices among commoners. This social class distinction is important to note because human sociobiologists have dismissed the many instances of royal incest as exceptional and of no consequence to the debate. Cases involving commoners, where sibling or other incestuous marriages are usual and systematic, strongly challenge sociobiological suggestions that a selection mechanism exists to prevent inbreeding.

____________________________________________________

While cousin marriage is legal in most, and avunculate marriage is legal in many countries, sexual relations between siblings is considered incestuous almost universally. However, the innate sexual aversion (taboo against sexual attraction) between siblings forms due to close association in childhood. Thus, children who grow up together do not develop sexual attraction, even if they are unrelated, and conversely, siblings who were separated at a young age may develop sexual attraction. Thus, most cases of sibling incest, including accidental incest in the case of couples who met without being aware of their being siblings, concern siblings who were separated at birth or at a very young age.[52]

However, laws prohibiting incest between siblings have come under attack in recent years as defining a victimless crime, and violating the human rights of siblings who wish to have sexual relations as consenting adults. Sibling relationship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not? Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not?

Proponents of same-sex marriage say it is a fundamental right, protected by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, no line should be drawn between marriage rights for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Opponents counter by saying that historical definitions of marriage, as well as important public-policy considerations, should be the basis of such laws; lines may be drawn.

But even framing the issue points out the vexing question that the Supreme Court will have to wrestle with when it reviews this decision: If marriage is a fundamental and inviolable right under the Fourteenth Amendment, why must it be limited to same-sex, otherwise non-related, couples? Why doesn’t the same constitutional principle apply to plural marriages? Or to otherwise closely related couples? Why not marriages between brothers and sisters? Uncles and nieces?

Actually, no, they did not actually grapple with that issue and made no mention of it as it was not a question before the court. However, as I have said before, if such a case were to be brought, they would indeed have to rule on it, on its own merits while considering what rational basis, or possible what government interest there is in prohibiting those practices.

_____________________________________________________________


And there is this that they could have used if they were intellectually invested in the issue:

Legalize Polygamy! Next Step: We Need to Legalize Polygamy. No Joke.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us.

Just pointing out that the USSC obviously didn't grapple with same sex sibling marriage issue, cuz they left the door wide open (Refernce Marylands law).

Interesting though, why didn't they since no marriage law contains the need of sex to qualification.

Not sure how your quotes justifies this obvious omission

It WAS NOT a question before the court! You are a fucking idiot who does not understand how things work and you are too stupid to even know what it is that you don't know!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots./QUOTE]

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

And faux progressives not even attempting to hide their bigotry, racism and homophobia, cuz they argue just like the hater dupes that tried to keep the black man down.

Shame on you!

That you for validating everything that I just said!

 

[Syriusly]

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots./QUOTE]

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

And faux progressives not even attempting to hide their bigotry, racism and homophobia, cuz they argue just like the hater dupes that tried to keep the black man down.

Shame on you!

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

That's is the same arguments that the rednecks down south used to try to shout down progressives like me that sought racial equality!

Next we'll see you in white sheets hanging black men!

Pop's keeps confirming what you said.

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

 

[Syriusly]

It is interesting to note just how much information that there is out there-both for and against- marriage that is not just between two unrelated people. In addition, there is anthropological information that describes the various cultural practices across geographical and cultural lines as well as historically.

I bring this up now as proof that certain people on this board who claim that polygamy and sibling marriage should or even must be allowed as a right do not really give a crap about the topic, or about anyone’s rights. If they did, they would have done the research and made the case for it- and the fact is that there is a case to be made –and there is some support for both sibling marriage and polygamy.

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

They could have presented an honest and balance case discussing the pros and cons but did no such thing. Rather, they have engaged to anti-intellectual and dishonest blathering and trolling. They pretend that they understand the legal issue while doing nothing more than making it up as they go.

I took the time to pull together a few articles that discuss various views on and aspects of these subjects-that I think are quite interesting. This is, in no way, to be taken as either and endorsement of, or condemnation of polygamy, sibling marriage or any other practice.

Dedicated to Boss and Pop…….see if you can learn something from this boys. Maybe it’s time to come up with an honest argument against same sex marriage and stop trying to bullshit people.

_______________________________________________________________

Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

Read more: Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates - Family, Marriages, and Sister - JRank ArticlesIncest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

There are several reliable examples of human communities where incest and/or close inbreeding have occurred on a regular and systematic basis. These examples include not only the well known cases of royal family incest but also incestuous practices among commoners. This social class distinction is important to note because human sociobiologists have dismissed the many instances of royal incest as exceptional and of no consequence to the debate. Cases involving commoners, where sibling or other incestuous marriages are usual and systematic, strongly challenge sociobiological suggestions that a selection mechanism exists to prevent inbreeding.

____________________________________________________

While cousin marriage is legal in most, and avunculate marriage is legal in many countries, sexual relations between siblings is considered incestuous almost universally. However, the innate sexual aversion (taboo against sexual attraction) between siblings forms due to close association in childhood. Thus, children who grow up together do not develop sexual attraction, even if they are unrelated, and conversely, siblings who were separated at a young age may develop sexual attraction. Thus, most cases of sibling incest, including accidental incest in the case of couples who met without being aware of their being siblings, concern siblings who were separated at birth or at a very young age.[52]

However, laws prohibiting incest between siblings have come under attack in recent years as defining a victimless crime, and violating the human rights of siblings who wish to have sexual relations as consenting adults. Sibling relationship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not? Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not?

Proponents of same-sex marriage say it is a fundamental right, protected by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, no line should be drawn between marriage rights for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Opponents counter by saying that historical definitions of marriage, as well as important public-policy considerations, should be the basis of such laws; lines may be drawn.

But even framing the issue points out the vexing question that the Supreme Court will have to wrestle with when it reviews this decision: If marriage is a fundamental and inviolable right under the Fourteenth Amendment, why must it be limited to same-sex, otherwise non-related, couples? Why doesn’t the same constitutional principle apply to plural marriages? Or to otherwise closely related couples? Why not marriages between brothers and sisters? Uncles and nieces?

Actually, no, they did not actually grapple with that issue and made no mention of it as it was not a question before the court. However, as I have said before, if such a case were to be brought, they would indeed have to rule on it, on its own merits while considering what rational basis, or possible what government interest there is in prohibiting those practices.

_____________________________________________________________


And there is this that they could have used if they were intellectually invested in the issue:

Legalize Polygamy! Next Step: We Need to Legalize Polygamy. No Joke.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us.

Just pointing out that the USSC obviously didn't grapple with same sex sibling marriage issue, cuz they left the door wide open (Refernce Marylands law).

Interesting though, why didn't they since no marriage law contains the need of sex to qualification.

Not sure how your quotes justifies this obvious omission

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.